However, he also told reporters Wednesday, after the investigation
had been completed, that no one has been fired or disciplined in
connection with the incident.In an inadvertent leak over Memorial
Day weekend that some have compared to the Valerie Plame affair that
resulted in a criminal probe and federal prison sentences, the White House put the name of the CIA station chief in the Afghan capital in a “pool report.”

There is no accountability in this administration.

None whatsoever.

This really is another key moment where we see the White House fail to take action and demand accountability.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Tikrit falls to
rebels, Nouri tries to shift the blame on the issue of security forces
deserting their posts in Mosul, Kenneth Pollack has some (bad)
suggestions, and much more.

Starting in the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate
Budget Committee and serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
Her office issued the following today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office

Wednesday, June 11, 2014 (202) 224-2834

VETERANS: Murray Remarks on Sanders-McCain Compromise

Murray: “We must keep working to address the management, resource, and personnel shortcomings we know exist at the VA.”

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), asenior member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee,
delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor before voting on the
Sanders-McCain legislation aimed at addressing transparency, wait
times, and accountability issues at the Department of
Veterans Affairs. The measure overwhelmingly passed the Senate and will
now be reconciled with legislation passed by the House of
Representatives, before heading to the President for his signature.

Senator Murray’s remarks as prepared:

“This
compromise is an excellent example of what Congress can do when we work
together to put veterans first and work toward substantive solutions to
the challenges
they face. Passing this legislation is a critical step toward
addressing some of the immediate accountability and transparency
concerns plaguing the VA and fixing its deep-seated structural and
cultural challenges.

“Each
new report seems to paint a more serious and more disturbing picture of
the VA’s system-wide failure to provide timely access to care for our
nation’s heroes.
I am especially concerned by the number of facilities that serve
Washington state veterans that have been flagged for further review and
investigation.
The VA has promised to get to the bottom of this and I expect them to do so immediately.

“However,
these new reports are not only consistent with what I hear so often
from veterans and VA employees, but also with what the Inspector General
and GAO have been reporting on for more than a decade.

“These
are not new problems and Congress must continue to take action on them,
while addressing the inevitable issues that will be uncovered as
ongoing investigations
and reviews are completed.

“I
expect this chamber to come together, as the House did yesterday –
twice, in fact – to move this bill forward – so we can work out our
difference with the House
and send this legislation to the President’s desk as soon as possible.

“As
we all know, there are serious problems at the VA that will not be
solved through legislation alone or by simply replacing the Secretary.
However, I am hopeful
these steps will spark long-overdue change -- from the top down -- in
order to ensure our veterans are getting the care and support they
expect and deserve.

“I
commend the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Vermont for their
commitment to bipartisanship and putting the needs of our veterans
first. This is an important compromise and I urge my colleagues to
continue the bipartisan
collaboration that made this bill possible.

“Let’s
pass this bill quickly so we can get these reforms in place. And we
must keep working to address the management, resource, and personnel
shortcomings we know exist at the VA.”

Yesterday, rebels seized control of Mosul. Today, Asharq Al-Awsat reports, "Insurgents captured parts of the Iraqi city of Tikrit on Wednesday, only
a day after members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
seized the city of Mosul amid scenes of chaos among Iraqi military
units." Tikrit, Encyclopedia Britannica explains,
"lies on the west bank of the Tigris River about 100 miles (160 km)
northwest of Baghdad. In the 10th century Tikrit had a noted fortress
and was home to a large Christian monastery. Its wealth at that time
derived from its production of woolen fabrics. Saladin, the Muslim
founder of the Ayyubid dynasty was born at Tikrit about 1137." It is
the capital of Salaheddin Province. AFP quotes a police colonel stating, "All of Tikrit is in the hands of the militants."

An eyewitness told the BBC that insurgents entered the town from four
different directions, and that at midday intense fighting was taking
place in the city center, around the headquarters of the Salaheddin
provincial government.

Al Jazeera adds, "Sources told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that gunmen had set up checkpoints
around Tikrit, which lies between the capital Baghdad and Mosul, which
was caputured by ISIL on Tuesday."

Back to Mosul, the CIA estimates
its population to be 1.447 million which puts it behind the most
populous city of Baghdad with an estimated population of 5.751 million.
These are estimates. Iraq has not had a census BBC News reports, "As many as 500,000 people fled Mosul after the militants
attacked the city. The head of the Turkish mission in Mosul and almost
50 consulate officials are being held by the militants, Turkish
officials say."Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports, "On Wednesday, several Mosul residents said the gunmen were knocking on
their doors, trying to reassure locals they would not be harmed and
urging civil servants to return to work. The situation appeared calm but
tense, said the residents, who spoke on condition of anonymity fearing
for their own safety." The United Nations News Center notes:Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and
the Security Council today deplored the kidnapping of Turkish diplomats
in the Iraqi city of Mosul, while the United Nations humanitarian arm
reported that hundreds of thousands of people have fled the area amid
rising violence.
Islamic insurgents seized Iraq’s second largest city on Tuesday
following days of fighting against Iraqi Government forces. As many as
500,000 people have reportedly fled Mosul in the wake of the violence,
and today, terrorists kidnapped the Consul General of Turkey and several
consulate staff working in the city.
“This is totally unacceptable,” Mr. Ban said, as he addressed
an event at UN Headquarters related to terrorism. “As Secretary-General
of the United Nations, I am condemning in the strongest possible terms
such a terrorist attack against diplomatic officers.”
In a separate statement issued by his spokesperson, the
Secretary-General strongly condemned the upsurge in violence in Iraq at
the hands of terrorist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL), which have reportedly taken control of the cities of
Mosul, Tuz Khourmatu, Beiji and Tikrit.
“Terrorism must not be allowed to succeed in undoing the path towards
democracy in Iraq as determined by the will of the Iraqi people,” said
the statement. “The Secretary-General urges the international community
to unite in showing solidarity with Iraq as it confronts this serious
security challenge.”
Members of the Security Council deplored the recent events in Mosul, and
condemned the recent terrorist attacks that are being perpetrated
against the people of Iraq “in an attempt to destabilize the country and
region,” Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of Russia, which holds the Council’s
presidency for June, said in a statement to the press.
“The members of the Security Council strongly denounced the taking of
hostages at the Turkish Consulate and insist on the immediate and safe
return of all personnel,” he added.

Let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot for this on the security forces flooding out of Mosul yesterday:

Mitchell Prothero and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) quote
Mosul teacher Zaid Mohammed stating, "I asked one soldier I know why he
was leaving. He told me, 'We came here for salaries, not to die'." Ziad al-Sinjary (Reuters) notes
corpses of security forces were "littering the streets" and quoted an
unnamed military officer stating, "We can't beat them. We can't. They
are well trained in street fighting and we're not. We need a whole army
to drive them out of Mosul. They're like ghosts: they appear, strike
and disappear in seconds."Alsumaria reports Nouri has ordered military commanders to arrest all security forces who abandoned their posts. NINA adds
that the Ministry of Defense has announced "al-Taji Camp, north of
Baghdad," is where the arrested security forces will be held. After the
2003 invasion, the US military used that camp and called it Camp Cooke.
Military.com notes it is located 30 kilometers from Baghdad. While security forces ran, All Iraq News notes, "More than 70 female students are stuck inside the University of Mosul after the control of the ISIL elements on the city."It should be noted that Al Mada's actually spoken with
an officer with the federal police, an officer who deserted Mosul, and
he tells the news outlet that leadership ordered the federal police to
drop their weapons and evacuate. Al Mada also reports that the first security forces to desert in Mosul were the Iraqi army forces.

Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) insists,
"The scale of the catastrophe, as troops loyal to Mr. Maliki flood
north
and troops controlled by the Kurdish Regional Government rush west and
south, can't be overstated." Which is probably why Nouri's rushing to
insist that someone other than him gave the order for the security
forces to fall back. BBC News notes Nouri al-Maliki gave a live, televised address today:

Mr Maliki said he did not want to apportion blame for who had ordered the security personnel "to retreat and cause chaos".

He added: "Those who deserted and did not carry out their
jobs properly should be punished but we will honour those who are
resisting."

Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) offers, "The charges are flying back and forth between regional leaders and Prime
Minister Nouri al Maliki as to who’s responsible. The provincial
governor, Atheel al Nujaifi, charged Maliki with full responsibility,
and said the fall of Mosul spelled the fall of the Maliki regime. Maliki
said the conquest of Mosul was 'a trick and conspiracy'."

Early in the war then-New York Times correspondent Dexter Filkins was
giddy over a planned interview with rebels. But he shared that news
with US military brass who gave Dexter a good glaring and suddenly he
was no longer interested in interviewing or speaking to the resistance.

The whole media embed process ensured that reporting would be one-sided.
Lazy journalists seemed to think that they were breaking new ground by
moving beyond US military sources to quote Iraqi government sources --
the Iraqi government that the US government used the US military to set
up.

That passed for 'balance.'

Molly Bingham and Steve Connors were the only western journalists to
demonstrate serious interest in documenting the realities of the war
which, yes, does include the Iraqi rebels. Meeting Resistance was the documentary film that Bingham and Connors made. In 2007, Judith Egerton's "Iraqis air their views in 'Meeting Resistance'" (Louisville Courier-Journal) reported:

Who is behind the attacks that maim and kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq?And why? "Meeting Resistance,"
a documentary shot in 2003 and 2004 by photojournalists Molly Bingham
and Steve Connors, goes into a Baghdad neighborhood near the protected
green zone to answer those questions.The 85-minute film captures the
viewpoint of Iraqis who oppose U.S. troops in their country. The film
reveals that ordinary people have joined with former Iraqi military
officers, religious leaders and others to drive out what they consider
to be an occupying force.They call themselves resisters,
nationalists and patriots. Many are self-proclaimed Jihadists willing to
martyr themselves for Islam and Iraq; others are not religious zealots
but teachers, engineers, wives and shopkeepers who say they are fighting
Americans out of pride and love for their homeland.A former Iraqi
soldier called the U.S. presence in his country "subjugation," and an
Iraqi woman told the reporters, "I yearn to be martyred -- my country is
occupied."The documentary will be screened at Baxter Avenue
Theatres, 1250 Bardstown Road, at 7 and 9:30 p.m. Friday, Saturday and
Sunday. Both Bingham and Connors will be there after each screening to
answer questions about their documentary and their experiences in Iraq.

They're really the only journalists to take the resistance seriously --
something all journalists should have been doing. Coverage does not
equate identification or embrace. Journalists are supposed to nail down
the story and that requires covering a story from all angles. Without
that approach, the full story isn't known and the media serves up
cheesy, generic statements passed off as 'illuminating details.'

Leela Jacinto (FRANCE 24) states, "ISIS basically emerged from remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq following the
2011 US troop pullout. The group declared itself fairly recently – in
April 2013, when the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
issued a statement announcing the merger of his group with a Syrian
rebel group, the al-Nusra Front under the new ISIS banner."

What the hell does that mean?

If you want to bash US President Barack Obama on the issue of al Qaeda,
it means you just got ammo. We have long noted that the White House
needed to clarify the situation in Iraq or start taking the criticism --
such as here:Where the press stands is that al Qaeda in Iraq is a nightmare group
which has increased its power in Iraq and gone on to Syria (and Libya --
for the few who bother to note the horror that is Libya today).Guess what boys and girls, if you want to run with that allegation, then you have to blame Barack. You can't have it both ways. If al Qaeda is on the rise in Iraq after
the (bulk) of US troops withdrew, then this is, in fact, on Barack.He clearly made a huge error.I'm not saying he did. But I don't buy into the mythical al Qaeda in Iraq.He can't have been brilliant on the Middle East if al Qaeda in Iraq is truly on the rise.You're going to have to reconcile your two assertions are in conflict, they're at cross purposes. If al Qaeda in Iraq is on the rise, Barack's to blame for that.

After advocating for that -- and decrying the "al Qaeda" catch all -- I was thrilled to see the White House and the State Dept reject the nonsense. (See the January 2nd snapshot for State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf declaring, "I think it’s not as simple as saying al-Qaida. Each of these groups is a
little bit different, and that’s important because when you’re trying
to figure out how to combat them and fight them, it actually matters who
they take guidance from and who’s giving them orders and who’s planning
these attacks.")

Good for them.

Let's note some of today's State Dept press briefing moderated by Jen Psaki:QUESTION: Well, don’t you think, though, that, like, you can
apply this example also to Syria in terms of that the situation is much
more grave now as you consider providing additional support to the
rebels than had you had done it two years ago when these discussions
first surmised. And in Iraq in particular, like, you’ve seen what was
happening in Iraq for – the violence has been steadily increasing for
some time, and now you’re kind of a little bit late to the game, don’t
you think?MS. PSAKI: Well, I would argue with that. I think in Syria,
it’s entirely different for a range of reasons, including the fact that
we have not had troops on the ground and there’s never been a
consideration to do that. So we’re not talking about a similar
situation. They’re obviously linked because of the impact of Syria on
the violence in Iraq, and that is a contributing factor that we think
has been – has had a major impact on what we’re seeing.QUESTION: I’m just saying, though, that isn’t there a kind of
recognition that you need to be more proactive instead of crisis –
responding to these various crises as they’re --MS. PSAKI: Well, clearly --QUESTION: -- after it’s a little bit too little too late?MS. PSAKI: I would disagree with that. The steps that we’ve
taken over the last several months to expedite the support that we are
providing was in advance of obviously the events that have occurred over
the last couple of days. We have a strong diplomatic presence on the
ground. We’re constantly evaluating what – how we can best assist, how
we can best help prepare to – and partner with the Iraqis to combat
these threats from terrorists, and that will continue.QUESTION: Then why not deploy something that is likely to
change the situation on the ground like drones? Since we know their
address, we know the address of Daeesh, the ISIL in Iraq. We know where
they are. We know where they are moving – their convoys, whatever, their
movement is well known. And this is something that can really change
things on the ground. Why not? I mean, this is something that --MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, as I mentioned --QUESTION: -- you continue to do in Pakistan and in Afghanistan and in Yemen.MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t discuss operational details along
those lines, as you know. I will say, as I noted, you can expect we will
increase our assistance. I have nothing I can outline further on that
front at this point.QUESTION: Okay. Because as it seems, the Iraqi army or the
Iraqi security forces aren’t able to hold onto what they have. For
instance, yesterday there was a helicopter that was overcome by Daeesh,
by the ISIL.MS. PSAKI: I know you asked me about that yesterday. I still don’t at
this point have confirmation of those details you mentioned.QUESTION: Okay. And also, we heard that the central government
has requested the aid of the Peshmerga, the Kurdish army or the Kurdish
militia, to going to after these bad guys. Will you assist the
Peshmerga, which – they have very close relations with the U.S.
military. Would you --MS. PSAKI: I think I just noted a few minutes ago, Said, so
I’d point you to this, that we support the steps taken by the Iraqi
federal government and the KRG in their efforts to cooperate on a
security plan. And that has, as you know, been difficult in the past, so
that we see that as a positive step.QUESTION: Are you also – I mean, the flipside of that – would
that help solidify the sort of – the separation in Iraq along ethnic
lines, like the KRG may become an independent country?MS. PSAKI: Again, we – you know where we stand on that. We are
encouraged by calls for national unity. The threat from ISIL and the
terrorists in Iraq is a challenge for all of the people as well as the
region.QUESTION: And my final question on national unity: Do you have
faith – I mean, this question was asked to you yesterday. Do you have
faith that Mr. Maliki can lead a national unity effort that can be
crowned with success?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as I noted yesterday – and our position
hasn’t changed – there’s more that Prime Minister Maliki can do. There’s
more that many leaders can do. We’re encouraged by calls for national
unity and we think that is the right step forward.

"al Qaeda in Iraq" is homegrown. It was bred by the illegal war. There
was no "al Qaeda" in Iraq prior to the start of the war and it is not
part of a global jihad. It has outsiders who join -- a Canadian, for
example, was revealed to have been a suicide bomber (successful --
meaning he's dead now) last month. Depending on Nouri's mood, he's
slamming Saudi Arabia or Jordan for the fighters. But the bulk are
Iraqis. (And, in fact, the State Dept believes a number of the foreign
fighters are coming from Lebanon.)

The increase in non-Iraqis is largely a result of Nouri's targeting
Sunnis. This has created regional sympathy which leads some to join
Iraqis in fighting Nouri and the US-installed government.

There's a lot of nonsense about how Syria's recruiting or influencing.

That's the sort of stupid reporters offer.

In the United States, Nevada and Utah share a border. If war or unrest
breaks out in Utah while was is declining or just being 'accepted' in
Nevada, there may be some overlap but what you will largely have is
outside fighters pouring into Utah which is where the new war/struggle
is.

In Iraq, the Sunni population is in the minority. In Syria, Sunnis are
in the majority. In Iraq, Shi'ites control the government. In Syria,
Shi'ites control the government (specifically the Alawite sect). If
it's Sunni versus Shi'ite, you really think a significant number of
Sunnis in Syria are saying, "Hey, let's forget about Syria where we
outnumber the Shi'ites by around three-to-one and let's go fight in
Iraq!"

No.

Looking at two potential battlefields, Sunni fighters would flow into or
remain in Syria. That's far more likely than the idea that they're
flooding into Iraq. Common sense has always been in short supply among
journalists -- hence the birth of tabloid journalism in the first place.
I agree with what Pensaki said with regards to Syria's alleged impact
(said in today's press briefing quoted earlier).

AFP insists,
"The jihadist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant posted pictures
online
of militants bulldozing a berm dividing Iraq and Syria, symbolising its
goal of uniting its forces in the two countries." It may or may not
symbolize that. But if the US military was stretched thin -- and it was
-- with two major battlefields (Iraq and Afghanistan), then so is
whatever groups AFP sees or thinks it sees in Syria and Iraq.

Do foreigners come into Iraq to fight with the Sunni resistance? All
the time. And you can thank Nouri al-Maliki for that. His persecution
of Sunnis is a recruitment tool.

He's run off Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. He falsely
charged Tareq, then he had his Baghdad court hold a press conference
insisting Tareq was guilty -- before the trial ever started.

That's not justice. That's not what the Iraqi Constitution defines as
justice. The Constitution defines all as innocent until proven guilty.
So it's outrageous that Baghdad judges announced Tareq's guilt before
he was ever tried.

That is just the most extreme example of Nouri targeting Sunni politicians.

Sunnis were being disappeared in the Iraqi legal system -- rounded up
and disappeared. Some without charges, some without trials. This
outraged many. This prompted the 2011 protests. There were many
demands but in terms of getting bodies in the street, that was the
ethical outrage which prompted action.

At the end of 2012, when protests re-emerged, the ethical outrage could
be traced to the abuse and rape of girls and women in Iraqi prisons.
These reports began emerging two months prior to the protests resuming.
Parliament's investigation had found the charges to be valid.

Sunni girls and women being beaten and raped in government prisons?

Not only will that lead to protests, it will also pull in foreign fighters. Sunnis in other countries will be outraged by it.

Nouri needs to take accountability for any foreign Sunni fighters in
Iraq. His actions have outraged the worldwide Sunni community. These
are among the reasonBetty makes this call, "Nouri al-Maliki isn't just a failure, he's a threat to the safety of Iraq, to its very future."

While the White House loves to use 'terrorists,' we use the terms: rebels, fighters, etc. As Mike noted last night:

I prefer "rebels" or "militants." I do not go along with "terrorists."Maybe they are terrorists but all I have on that is Nouri's words.They fight Nouri.That doesn't make them terrorists.Nouri is a thug, a US installed thug.If I were Iraqi, I'd be fighting to topple him.So I'm not going to rush to call people fighting for their country "terrorists" just because the media says they are.They have a government and leaders imposed on them by the US.They have every right to resist and many noted that they would when the bulk of US troops left Iraq.It's their country and they have every right to fight for it.

At The Huffington Post, Daniel Nisman offers an analysis which includes:In a troubling development, Maliki has already threatened to "arm
citizens" to fight ISIS, and claimed to have created a special crisis
unit to implement a process of "volunteering and equipping." Such
rhetoric is eerily in line with Maliki's past tendencies of mobilizing
Shiite militias, many of them religious extremists, to combat Sunni
jihadists. In the recent Fallujah and Ramadi counteroffensives, local
residents complained of seeing Shiite militia insignias on Iraqi army
tanks, alleging that these militias had been mobilized under the guise
of the regular army, accusations that only fomented further mistrust
among the Sunni population.

I agree with many of the points Nisman makes elsewhere in his analysis. Read the whole thing. At the Wall St. Journal, Kenneth M. Pollack offers mini-analysis and suggestions.
I disagree with so much. Pollack seems unaware that he's arguing the
Iraq War was about oil (but when you write, that the events in Iraq
right now are "a serious threat for the United States. Americans seem
to think that the vast increased in domestic oil production from shale
deposits has immunized the U.S. economy from Middle East instaiblity"
that's what you're suggesting).

We're going to look at these two suggestions Pollack makes in order to clarify why I disagree with him:• A constitutional amendment imposing a two-term limit on the
presidency and prime ministership. (A third term for Mr. Maliki may have
to be grandfathered in to get him to agree, but simply advertising to
all Iraqis that he will not rule for life would be an important
reassurance that Iraq is not drifting back into dictatorship.)

Really?

Nouri is the cause of the violence. Pollack doesn't state that, I do.
He does note Nouri abuses power. So even though Moqtada al-Sadr, the
Kurds, Osama al-Nujaifi, Ayad Allawi and various others opposed a third
term for Nouri (that list includes Ammar al-Hakim provided al-Hakim is
named prime minister), the Iraqi people have to endure Nouri?

That makes no sense.

Nor does the notion that Nouri accepts the imposing of two terms only.

Here's what will most likely happen. Nouri might agree to get his third
term. He would then say the law passed after he started his third term
so he can still be elected to two more terms.

I'm sorry Pollack didn't pay attention the what happened in the KRG
recently. KRG President Massoud Barzani was in office when the KRG's
Parliament passed the two term rule for his post. What happened?

He was allowed two terms plus two years because it was passed two years after his first term started.

And Nouri's State of Law had a reaction. I get so damn tired of spoon
feeding. But they had a reaction and it was publicly stated to Iraqi
media that if a two-term law ever passed for the Iraqi prime minister
post (I believe it did pass and then Nouri's court ruled it
unconstitutional, but whatever), that term limit would only kick in for
elections after the law passed.

Which would mean Nouri could go five term.

Again, people need to pay attention.

I'm being more kind than I usually am on stuff like this because I
believe Pollack genuinely thought his suggestions had value. Let's
examine another:

• A
law defining the powers and prerogatives of the defense and interior
ministers, thereby limiting the ability of the prime minister to
exercise those powers.

What?

Does Pollack not know that Nouri grabbed those powers?

He did so by refusing to nominate anyone for the security posts.

Back in July 2012, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed,
"Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting
power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions,
including the ministers of defense, interior and national security,
while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."

Nouri's second term is ending and those three Cabinent posts remain empty.

Nouri controls them.

Now, Pollack, help me out on how Nouri's going to be forced to nominate
people for those posts this go round having made it through four years
without them?

The easiest way to slow down the violence is to kick Nouri out of
office. The US government needs to pull all support. If you don't
grasp that, maybe you shouldn't be having this conversation.

Iraqis are scared of Nouri because he's a thug and he's destroyed the
country and Pollack wants to suggest the answer is a third term?

Violence didn't disappear after the April 30th elections. But it did
kick up a notch after Nouri claimed (he was lying) that he had the seats
in Parliament to get a third term.

That's when the already violent day-to-day got more violent.

You are stripping a people of hope and forcing them to live in fear. Of course, they will resort to violence.

Pollack is correct when he notes that "the
Obama
administration seems to turn a blind eye toward Iraq no matter how bad things get." And they continue to support Nouri.

Nouri breaks every promise. He breaks with them with the Iraqi people.
He broke them with Bully Boy Bush. He's broken them with Barack Obama.

You have to want to be fooled to take Nouri at his word today.

He promised to implement the White House's benchmarks. Bully Boy Bush
came up with those. They never got implemented. Barack's on his second
term and Nouri never kept his word on the benchmarks. To get his
second term as prime minister, Barack had US officials negotiate The
Erbil Agreement -- quid pro quo, Nouri promised leaders of political
blocs certain things in writing in exchange for their agreeing to grant
him a second term. He briefly honored the contract -- long enough to
start his second term. Then he refused to honor it. This led to the
political crisis which led to the increased violence.

Nouri lies and you have to be an idiot at this late date to think that
the man who twice took an oath to the Iraqi Constitution but has twice
failed to implement Article 140 as the Constitution compels him to (it
resolves the disputed Kirkuk) is going to honor any promise.

He's a liar. And only the extreme idiots would, at this late date, believe him when he promised he was going to do something.